Why do you think authentication/authorization is required? The user will be
prompted before making an action and it's an action they do against RH-SSO
and not automatically visible/exposed to the client.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 14:31, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva(a)redhat.com> wrote:
One way is to follow authorization code constraints like checking
the
client_id and redirect_uri (assuming the user will be redirected back after
the action completes). But still, we could also add some level
authorization.
authorization code constraints doesn't work as anyone can just use the
client_id and redirect_uri from a different client.
Only viable option I can think of is to add an endpoint where the
application can request a token to initate an action. So flow would be:
1. App sends POST { action: <action-id> } with ID Token as bearer token in
header to a new endpoint. This would return a single use token.
2. App can now do the redirect protocol as before, but instead of
"?action=<action>" they would do "?action-token=<action
token>"
In the JS adapter we can add a action(actionId) function that would get the
action token before redirecting the user.
Not sure what you mean about level authorization.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:25 AM Stian Thorgersen <sthorger(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> The issue is more around how to authenticate clients and also the fact
> that clients wanting to initiate actions may be public clients. We also
> don't want to invent a new protocol for this, but rather just rely on the
> OIDC flows.
>
> So with those constraints how would you authenticate the client?
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 14:23, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> IMO, we should have some level of authorization for clients initiating
>> an action. This could be as simple as leveraging authz in order to define
>> white/black lists of clients. Similar to what a KC extension does in
>> regards to authentication.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:15 PM Stian Thorgersen <sthorger(a)redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Was hoping for some more feedback from the list on this one.
>>>
>>> Especially around not having any authentication of the clients wanting
>>> to
>>> initiate an action. I feel reasonable comfortable about not securing it
>>> and
>>> requiring actions to prompt the user before doing anything, but welcome
>>> others opinion on it.
>>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 11:07, Peter Skopek <pskopek(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Since there is no "silent" application initiated action
(always
>>> > prompts user) possible and actions are predefined at keycloak I see no
>>> > need for the client/application restriction mechanism.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:23 PM Stian Thorgersen
<sthorger(a)redhat.com
>>> >
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Keycloak currently has required actions that are used to prompt
the
>>> user
>>> > to
>>> > > perform an action associated with their account after
>>> authenticating, but
>>> > > prior to being redirected to the application.
>>> > >
>>> > > Examples include: configure OTP, update profile, validate email,
>>> etc.
>>> > >
>>> > > One issue here is these actions have to be manually registered
with
>>> the
>>> > > users account, but can not be initiated by applications
themselves.
>>> As an
>>> > > example it may not be required by all users to verify their email,
>>> but
>>> > only
>>> > > when they use specific applications.
>>> > >
>>> > > Keycloak also needs to initiate actions from the account
management
>>> > > console. Examples: updating email address should require verifying
>>> the
>>> > > email, configuring OTP, etc.
>>> > >
>>> > > With that in mind we are proposing to introduce Application
>>> Initiated
>>> > > Actions. An Application Initiated Action behind the scenes is just
a
>>> > > Required Action, but it is initiated by an application and
>>> depending on
>>> > the
>>> > > action may be optional for the user to complete (where the user
can
>>> > select
>>> > > cancel which would return the user back to the application).
>>> > >
>>> > > No Application Initiated Actions should perform any updates to the
>>> users
>>> > > account without prompting the user first. For example an
application
>>> > > initiated action that is used to link an existing account to a
>>> social
>>> > > provider should ask the user first if they want to link to the
>>> provider.
>>> > >
>>> > > To make it easy for applications to integrate these I would like
to
>>> > > leverage the standard OAuth flows that applications use to
>>> authenticate
>>> > > users. So to initiate verify-email action the application would
>>> redirect
>>> > to
>>> > > the authentication endpoint and add kc_action=<action alias>
query
>>> > > parameter.
>>> > >
>>> > > One open question I have right now is. Assuming all Application
>>> Initiated
>>> > > Actions always prompt the user first do we need to add some
>>> mechanism in
>>> > > place to restrict what clients/applications are permitted to
>>> initiate an
>>> > > action? Requiring that would make it harder to use for
applications.
>>> > >
>>> > > One thing I would also like to add is the ability for an
Application
>>> > > Initiated Action to require the user to re-authenticate prior to
>>> > performing
>>> > > the action. For example update password should require the user to
>>> enter
>>> > > the current password, while verify email should not (as it simply
>>> sends
>>> > an
>>> > > email with a link to continue).
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > keycloak-dev mailing list
>>> > > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> > >
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> keycloak-dev mailing list
>>> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>>
>>